The president showed up... and Romney still won...

[ian_m_anderson]

True but if you want to look at this perspective on politics, Jimmie Carter did end up creating more jobs than Ronald Reagan, yet due to the baby boomers from WWII vets returning being at the eligiable job age when carter was in office, it doesn't seem that way. people don't look at it from that point. If that is your point, then Jimmy Carter was a better president than ronald reagan by far. But that is not what most speak of with Reagan vs. Carter data is it

 

[gavinfielder]

LOL....not EVEN close. Desperate spin on your part. This was a decisive win for Obama and the polls will reflect that. What we saw on the stage tonight was the difference between a PRESIDENT and a POLITICIAN. Romney tried, but Obama won big.

I think the polls reflect a bleak picture of American intellectualism. That ANYONE can say Romney won is pitiful.

Still, from those comments you fail to see that most recoveries are far quicker and better than this one has been... We are currently recovering slower from the recession than we did under Bush...

The recession hit at the end of Bush's term. I don't see how you can even claim this when there's no evidence to suggest that the two instances are even comparable.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the fact that we spent more than FDR did to get out of the depression in attempting to create a recovery, too... and it still hasn't happened...

Wait, we never recovered from the Great Depression? What American history are you living in?

We are in a slowly recovering, stagnating, and potentially contracting economy, atm...

We aren't in a contracting economy; the economy has been recovering since mid-2009. In fact, our GDP is higher than pre-recession levels. The recovery you're talking about is the gap between population and job supply, which is recovering. Slowly or not, it's recovering, and not stagnating. It's a comparison of the derivatives: the job growth has been consistently slightly higher than the population growth, and that's recovery. Stagnating would be the inequality sign turned the other way. It's not there.

Temporary government jobs don't a career make...

Education does. The president hit education a lot tonight.
Btw, "temporary government jobs" has never been a huge part of Obama's platform. He's all about incenting the private sector to do it. Name one point in tonight's debate where Obama pushed public sector jobs.

The president often likes to bring up the "Bill Clinton" topic... Bill Clinton balanced the budget by cutting spending and reforming welfare, getting more people back to work in the private sector paying taxes... Obama has done just the opposite... making more people more dependent on the government... which has meant less people working and less people paying taxes...

You're obfuscating the record here. More welfare dependence can only be a result of the Bush recession. The idea that Obama did anything to further it is ludicrous, and if you disagree, show me the evidence.

He also keeps saying he wants to bring the tax rates to what they were under Bill Clinton... but Bill Clinton said his own tax rates were too high... and he has said that the economy currently would not support a raise in tax rates, and that it would be disastrous to raise taxes right now... So who would you rather believe about Bill Clinton's opinions on tax hikes... Bill Clinton or Barack Obama...

Because context means nothing?

Again... enough measuring of the words used in campaigns... measure the proven results of their records...

Romney's has been far superior... in the private sector, in non-profit ventures, and in government...

Romney's record is making a lot of money for himself and his associates and cutting jobs for a lot of people beneath him.

Romney created his own company...

And ran numerous others into the ground. I bet that most people who don't start their own company do that.

 

[Donahue]

oh that is just too funny. Romney records clearly shows that he doesn't have a clue about creating jobs. I like what Tom Leykis said on his radio program last week, "just because your good with money doesn't mean your candidate to be president. Or Warren Buffet is should be running since he makes 100 times more than Mitt." I was just paraphrasing, however, Tom is right. Mitt doesn't have a clue on how to create jobs. He was a financial CEO of Bain capital where he would buy small and mid size businesses, clue them together, load them with debt and sell them. Where in there did he know how to create jobs? Oh wait.....none.

That's just kind of foolish but whatever.

I think the most important thing to take away from all this job creation talk is that there seems to be no shortage of executives from the very companies Pres. Obama wants to see hiring acknowledge that his policies are going to strangle businesses. It seems the only businesses that support his policies are the "green" companies that keep filing for bankruptcy after taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.

He's specifically being told by virtually everyone in the business world that his policies are not conducive to job growth and yet he's still plodding along.

 

[gavinfielder]

the "green" companies that keep filing for bankruptcy after taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.

The widespread failure of those businesses are a failure of his policies, I think, I can agree with that, and I'd rather see him own up to that.

The underlying logic of why he supported those businesses, however, I think is sound. Invest in companies to create jobs while simultaneously investing in America's future. The distant future is something we absolutely must consider as a nation, and it's irresponsible to discard this conversation as unimportant, because resources ARE dwindling and global warming DOES exist. The way in which I think Obama could have done better was to be more frugal with his spending and only subsidize companies which had a more reasonable argument that they could actually produce something worthwhile--a real cost-benefits/probability analysis, if you will.

 

[ian_m_anderson]

Not sure how someone would note that "

It seems the only businesses that support his policies are the "green" companies that keep filing for bankruptcy after taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.

. Maybe we should also take into consideration the number of banks and investment firms that have gone under due to the previous presidents/vice-president decisions on the "free market" attempt. Those were the businesses that BUsh/Cheney supported, which caused the beginning of this "Great Recession"

 

[Logos]

As a moderate, I'd have to disagree. Romney largely sounded a lot more like a broken record than he did last time and repeatedly dodged specifics when he was asked for them. I just kept hearing about his "five point plan" whenever he was asked for specifics and I consider that more of a glorified outline than a plan. Obama listed a lot of policies and a lot of numbers that made me all happy inside. Obama also did a nice job of railing Romney for ignoring his previous positions in the primaries.

I don't think Romney was out of it though so it certainly wasn't a massive defeat for Romney, but Romney lost. Sorry. It's what I saw.

Also, both candidates lied out the rear like their lives depended on it.

I think this gets to the heart of the Romney campaign. I support Romney and I even understand why he wouldn't give specifics on his tax plan. For example he won't be making the specifics, congress will. If he lays out deduction cuts now it gives special interests more time to arrange a defense, lobbying, and political leverage against those cuts.


He at least needs to say that if the number end up not adding up, then he will go through the 3.5 trillion dollar budget and find cuts of up to few hundred billion to make it work, and/or slightly reduce the amount of tax reduction from 20% to 15% or somewhere in-between. But he also need to make clear that his plan is the ideal that he will continue to push.

He has basically said this all already, and shown how he did it in Mass. with the budget there. He just hasn't said it very clearly in a way that a typical swing voter can understand. He has said that he is merely laying out the principle, and that it is up to congress to fill out the details... they are the lawmakers not the president.

So when asked for details, your average voter who is only engaged in politics during election, who don't normally follow tax policy... they don't get it.

 

[Donahue]

The widespread failure of those businesses are a failure of his policies, I think, I can agree with that, and I'd rather see him own up to that.

The underlying logic of why he supported those businesses, however, I think is sound. Invest in companies to create jobs while simultaneously investing in America's future. The distant future is something we absolutely must consider as a nation, and it's irresponsible to discard this conversation as unimportant, because resources ARE dwindling and global warming DOES exist. The way in which I think Obama could have done better was to be more frugal with his spending and only subsidize companies which had a more reasonable argument that they could actually produce something worthwhile--a real cost-benefits/probability analysis, if you will.

Investing in the future is important but frivolously throwing money away on impractical but politically advantageous technology is idiotic.

His actions on "green" technology completely sums up the problems with unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector but also his economic plan as a whole. His decisions are about good politics; not good business. Every sector but the "green" has expressed concern about drowning in unnecessary taxes and regulation but he plods along anyway because liberals eat that stuff up.

 

[gavinfielder]

His decisions are about good politics; not good business.

I can reasonably agree with that, given the context of our example.

I think elsewhere he's done reasonably well in restoring the economy and rejuvenating business, but government subsidies, no. Bailouts...they were necessary for the economy, but the companies should be held accountable at a later date. It's not good business to give companies a free pass, and that's where I'd also agree with your statement. In the end, it's about accountability.

EDIT:

impractical but politically advantageous technology

Wait a second, what are you talking about here? Politically advantageous is only a consideration for partisan hacks, not anyone actually concerned for the future of America. The only way you can say otherwise is to deny dwindling resources and climate change which necessitate innovation.

 

[ian_m_anderson]

Donahue please explain why someone would support the continuation of government subsidies for a highly profitable mega conglomitor corporation that profits as high as exon mobile, but doesn't believe that a starting markets deserve the same. Please recall, the internet you are currently using was produceed by the United States government.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

That's just kind of foolish but whatever.

I think the most important thing to take away from all this job creation talk is that there seems to be no shortage of executives from the very companies Pres. Obama wants to see hiring acknowledge that his policies are going to strangle businesses. It seems the only businesses that support his policies are the "green" companies that keep filing for bankruptcy after taking hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.

He's specifically being told by virtually everyone in the business world that his policies are not conducive to job growth and yet he's still plodding along.

Exactly...

This is one of those internal arguments often held within each company... Should we listen to the intellectuals in universities or should we look at what gets proven results in the private sector... The more successful businesses follow proven results in the private sector... not the unproven theories of intellectualls...

That's the difference here... Obama is a thinker and a talker who wants to do things he thinks could work... Romney has done things time and time again that have worked...

I want the results not the rhetoric...

 

[Donahue]

I can reasonably agree with that, given the context of our example.

I think elsewhere he's done reasonably well in restoring the economy and rejuvenating business, but government subsidies, no. Bailouts...they were necessary for the economy, but the companies should be held accountable at a later date. It's not good business to give companies a free pass, and that's where I'd also agree with your statement. In the end, it's about accountability and responsibility of the businesses in question, on both issues.

I think he's outright hurt the economy.

We're past the recession and into the recovery.

These are supposed to be the "BOOM" years but they're not booming. The economy is anemically limping along and there is little wiggle room there.

 

[ian_m_anderson]

Then the right needs to cut back their political ambitions that are wasting our tax dollars on over turning Roe VS. Wade which will never change. That right there is a waste of money and time. It is only sad that people continue to base their political views on religious beliefs. The abortion industry is a private market to, why is that an different than green energy? And the fact the our founders intention was to keep Church seperate from State makes all po-lifers anti constitutionalist. Seperation of church and state wasn;t suppose to change over time due to people trying to self impose their feelings about legislation on other individuals. No one forces people to join a certain church, why should people believe that they should be able to impose their beliefs on others.

 

[gavinfielder]

Exactly...

This is one of those internal arguments often held within each company... Should we listen to the intellectuals in universities or should we look at what gets proven results in the private sector... The more successful businesses follow proven results in the private sector... not the unproven theories of intellectualls...

That's the difference here... Obama is a thinker and a talker who wants to do things he thinks could work... Romney has done things time and time again that have worked...

I want the results not the rhetoric...

Ok, let's do it data-driven then.

Someone show me the evidence supporting the claim that "virtually everyone in the business world that his policies are not conducive to job growth", and then show me evidence supporting their claim that they are.

THAT'S anti-intellectualism: the idea that we can listen to a few people (I'll wait to hear evidence on how many) and call it correct, without actual reasoning.

And this is just precious:

Should we listen to the intellectuals

Gurhur, should we listen to people who use logic and math? I don't know, that's a tough one...

 

[gavinfielder]

These are supposed to be the "BOOM" years but they're not booming. The economy is anemically limping along and there is little wiggle room there.

Heh, yeah. It would help if republicans didn't cockblock every meaningful move he made in a political gambit.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

I think the polls reflect a bleak picture of American intellectualism. That ANYONE can say Romney won is pitiful.

You know what... this is such a pathetic excuse for an argument and it's reflected all the way down the post... this mistaken notion that you think it's intellectually inferior to support a different viewpoint.... That's just plain insulting and you don't warrant further response...

But, I will take the time to point out Mitt Romney got a Baker Scholar for finishing in the top 5% of his Harvard Business School while concurrently earning his JD out of Harvard Law cum laude... After finishing Summa Cum Laude out of BYU...

This Harvard educated social scientist finds that education to be more than up to snuff with intellectual ability... and can concede Obama has it as well...

I just far prefer the fact that Mitt Romney has actually taken his intellectual ability and achieved real results on numerous occasions... becoming an expert on economic/fiscal turnarounds, achieving lofty results, managing large scale construction projects... and being a top rate executive...

Obama hasn't proven anything... and if this first 4 years of a mixed bag of results and failures is all there is to judge his leadership ability on... Than Romney is far superior to anything Romney has to offer...

 

[ian_m_anderson]

Amen on that one Gavinfielder. The house hasn't passed a damn thing in the last two years other than attempted tax cuts for those who don't need the tax cuts.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Heh, yeah. It would help if republicans didn't cockblock every meaningful move he made in a political gambit.

Yeah... those damn Republicans... having neither control of the House or Senate in Obama's first two years.... stopping Obama the way they did... :roll:

They really prevented him from signing the Keystone Pipeline XL Extenstion bill, didn't they!!! Oh wait... Obama didn't do that... because he doesn't want gas prices to go down... since he wants high prices to force a change to green technology...

 

[Donahue]

Donahue please explain why someone would support the continuation of government subsidies for a highly profitable mega conglomitor corporation that profits as high as exon mobile, but doesn't believe that a starting markets deserve the same. Please recall, the internet you are currently using was produceed by the United States government.

I think it's a terrible idea for the government to invest in the private sector in general but if you're asking me if I think investing in a proven company in high demand like Exxon Mobile is a better investment then the now defuct Solyndra then the answer would be a resounding "no duh".

 

[gavinfielder]

You know what... this is such a pathetic excuse for an argument and it's reflected all the way down the post... this mistaken notion that you think it's intellectually inferior to support a different viewpoint.... That's just plain insulting and you don't warrant further response...

I didn't insult that at all. I insulted the lack of logical reasoning in supporting a viewpoint. Show me an actual argument, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

expert on economic/fiscal turnarounds

Remember Massachusetts being 47th in job creation?

 

[ian_m_anderson]

It would have been a little more acceptable if the previous President was not an oil barren in which when he took office a barrell of oil was $11 and right before the bust it reach $160. That had nothing to do with personal interests. And if you recall, gasoline was exceeding $5 a gallon before the market crashed which means that what we are at now is probably a little more reaslistic since OPEC continues to cut their production to keep the prices up

 

[Alexanko]

It's hilarious watching the FAR LEFT slowly realize that they're tactical media approach to create every reasonable issue 1 sided is ending.
The media is now being forced to not be bias aka the news elite and have decided Obama is making mistakes and can't cover all his tracks.
finally the American people is waking up to our rockstar president's path forward and discoverd the community activist is lost with our economic problems.
Romney truly is coming back from behind aganst the elite media & hollywood this is better than go to the movies because this election is REAL

 

[ian_m_anderson]

PLease explain though why one would not criticize subsidies for companies that don't need them, but not for a new market, as notes earlier, the internet would not be available now if it was not for the United States Government

 

[gavinfielder]

Yeah... those damn Republicans... having neither control of the House or Senate in Obama's first two years.... stopping Obama the way they did... :roll:

They really prevented him from signing the Keystone Pipeline XL Extenstion bill, didn't they!!! Oh wait... Obama didn't do that... because he doesn't want gas prices to go down... since he wants high prices to force a change to green technology...

Oh yeah, that reminds me of something I wish Obama called Romney out on.

Gas prices aren't under the direct control of the President, it's a market force between supply and demand. I think (maybe I'm optimistic) that if Obama said that, Americans would understand that it depends solely on the supply...and demand. He said that, implicitly, but Romney's insistence on rolling right over this basic fact was sickening.

I shouldn't have to explain Obama's stance on it, and I won't, because it's high school economics. Anyone who passed high school with a modicum of intelligence for economics would have gotten more substance from the debate tonight than what you just put out there.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Amen on that one Gavinfielder. The house hasn't passed a damn thing in the last two years other than attempted tax cuts for those who don't need the tax cuts.

Other than say... A BUDGET!!! The Republicans in Congress have passed NUMEROUS pieces of legislation... The Senate have held them up from getting to the president (at the president's stated opinions that he would not sign them)... or the Senate has passed them and they're sitting waiting for the president's signature... which they haven't gotten as of yet...

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Oh yeah, that reminds me of something I wish Obama called Romney out on.

Gas prices aren't under the direct control of the President, it's a market force between supply and demand. I think (maybe I'm optimistic) that if Obama said that, Americans would understand that it depends solely on the supply...and demand. He said that, implicitly, but Romney's insistence on rolling right over this basic fact was sickening.

I shouldn't have to explain Obama's stance on it, and I won't, because it's high school economics. Anyone who passed high school with a modicum of intelligence for economics would have gotten more substance from the debate tonight than what you just put out there.

And... since this president has done little to create additional supply... and in fact has prevented the supply of fuel by coal plants... Romney was right to call Obama out on it...